Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Alika Gupta W/O Late Piyush Singhal vs Mahendra Kumar S/O Buddharam on 15 February, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:7704]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1390/2020
1. Smt. Alika Gupta W/o Late Piyush Singhal, Aged About 49
Years, Resident Of House No. C-20, Jamna Nagar, Sodala,
Jaipur
2. Master Ashutosh S/o Late Piyush Singhal, Aged About 20
Years, Resident Of House No. C-20, Jamna Nagar, Sodala,
Jaipur
----Appellants
Versus
1. Mahendra Kumar S/o Buddharam, Resident Of Jalpivas,
Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar (Driver Mahindra
Bolero No. Rj-32-Ua-0575)
2. Kanwar Singh S/o Choturam, B/c Gurjar, Resident Of
Village Alanpur, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar (Registered
Owner Mahindra Bolero No. Rj-32-Ua-0575)
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Having Its Regional
Office At Jeevan Nidhi, Near Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani
Singh Road, Jaipur Through Its Regional Manager
(Insurance Company Mahindra Bolero No. Rj-32-Ua-0575)
4. Asha Singhal W/o Late Mahendra Pal Singhal, (Died)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhi Goyal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 15/02/2024
The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants-claimants (for
short 'the claimants') dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 04.12.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
and Essential Commodities Act, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur (for
short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No.142/15 (1459/2008),
whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.45,46,000/- along
with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim
petition in favour of the claimants.
[2024:RJ-JP:7704] (2 of 4) [CMA-1390/2020]
The Tribunal on the basis of the pleading of the parties,
framed the issues and evaluated the evidence on record. After
hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the
claimants and awarded the amount as indicated above.
Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal
has erred in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.
3,19,714/- per annum. Learned counsel for the claimants also
submits that as per the evidence adduced by the claimants,
income of the deceased should be assessed as Rs. 10,75,000/-
per annum. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that
Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of 15, whereas it
should be on higher side. Learned counsel for the claimants also
submits that Tribunal has awarded very meager amount of Rs.
40,000/- towards loss of consortium whereas it should be Rs.
40,000/- per person. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal may
be modified accordingly.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-National Insurance
Company Ltd. (for short 'the insurance company') has opposed
the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and
submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the
deceased as Rs. 3,19,714/- per annum. As per the income tax
returns of the year 2007-08 (Ex. 29), gross income of deceased
was Rs. 3,43,988/- and he had paid the income tax of Rs.
24,274/-. So, net income of the deceased was Rs. 3,19,714/- per
annum. Learned counsel for the insurance company also submits
that as per the educational qualification documents of the
deceased, his driving licence and other documents, date of birth of
the deceased was 18.02.1971. So, at the time of accident, which
[2024:RJ-JP:7704] (3 of 4) [CMA-1390/2020]
took place on 13.04.2008, he was 37 years 2 months of age. So,
Tribunal had rightly applied the multiplier of 15. Learned counsel
for the insurance company also submits that Tribunal has rightly
awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium. So, appeal filed
by the claimants be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the
insurance company.
As per the income tax return of the year 2007-08 (Ex.29),
gross income of the deceased was Rs. 3,43,988/- and after
deducting the income tax of Rs. 24,274/-, net income of the
deceased was Rs. 3,19,714/-. As per the date of birth, as
mentioned in driving licence educational qualification documents
of the deceased, his driving licence and other documents, date of
birth of the deceased was 18.02.1971 and thus, on the date of the
accident, he was 37 years and 2 months of age. So, the Tribunal
has rightly applied the multiplier of 15. But the Tribunal has only
awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium, whereas it
should be Rs. 40,000/- to each claimant towards loss of
consortium and love and affection. So, claimants are entitled to
get Rs. 40,000/- per person towards loss of consortium and love
and affection. So, the judgment of the Tribunal is modified to the
extent as under:-
Annual Income (after Rs. 3,19,714/-
deducting income tax)
1/3 is to be deducted for 3,19,714 - 1,06,571 = Rs.
personal expenses of the 2,13,143/-
deceased
Since, deceased was 37 2,13,143 X 15=Rs.31,97,145/-
years 2 months of age at
[2024:RJ-JP:7704] (4 of 4) [CMA-1390/2020]
the time of accident,
multiplier of 15 should be
applied
Add 40% towards future 31,97,145+12,78,858 =
prospects Rs.44,76,003/-
Loss of Consortium to Rs. 80,000/-
claimant No.1 (Rs.40,000/-)
& loss of Love & Affection to
claimant No.2 (Rs.
40,000/-) (+)
Loss of Estate (+) Rs. 15,000/-
Funeral expenses (+) Rs. 15,000/-
Total
Rs.45,86,003/-
Less amount awarded by
the Tribunal Rs.45,46,000/-
Enhanced Amount of
compensation 45,86,003 - 45,46,000 =
Rs. 40,003/-
In view of the above, the claimants are entitled to get a
further sum of Rs. 40,003/- as compensation. The insurance
company is directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs. 40,003/-
(45,86,003 - 45,46,000 = Rs. 40,003/-) with the Tribunal within
a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order. On deposition of the said amount, the claimants shall
be entitled to withdraw the same. The enhanced amount shall
carry @ 6% interest per annum.
Rest part of the impugned judgment shall remain
unchanged. Impugned judgment and award is modified
accordingly.
Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Ritu/203
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
